Please pardon this crude analysis. It's better than none at all - which is what the government has provided.

A recurring pattern: 9/11 evidence which makes it very difficult (or impossible) to go on blaming "hijackers" for 9/11 has been ignored and suppressed by the government and the media and the phony "911 truth movement".

The 1st WTC impact

For whatever reason, not enough people are paying close enough attention to the opening salvo of 9/11.

The first WTC impactwas very strange-looking. What was that premature bright flash, immediately prior to (or upon) impact with the tower wall?(And why haven't the television networks seen fit to replay and analyze and discuss this blatant visual evidence of high-tech foul play?)

This video was shot (to tape) by Jules Naudet. It is the only known video of the 1st WTC impact. It spent the day in his camera with him at Ground Zero.It was first broadcast by Univision at around 1 a.m. (EDT) on 9/12, which is when this VHS recording was made.(download) (download2) (download3)

In the Naudet video documentary, the cameraman, who was with firefighters at the time, immediately went with them to the WTC, not to Gamma Press (the group which first published the video that night). So how did George Bush see the 1st WTC impact on TV before he entered that classroom at 9 a.m., as he has repeatedly stated, hmmmm? (Most likely answer: DISA)

In the meantime, as you squint at this fuzzy video of the 1st WTC impact, trying to decide for yourself - as you should - if that was really a 767 or not (earlyreports indicated not, plus no one's ever explained how a 767 could ever make such a brief bright burst of light upon impact...), we offer you one basic 767 fact: The wing is in the middle of the plane.

There is approximately an equal amount of fuselage ahead of the wing as there is behind it. Therefore, if the video is of an actual 767, there should be approximately as much fuselage visible ahead of the wing as there is behind it.

Using the frame advance buttons (or kybd arrow keys) of your QuickTime player, note how long it takes the aircraft to block the light reflecting from the corner of the tower as it flies by. This provides another opportunity to visually estimate how much fuselage there was ahead of the wing.

Thus even these noisy VHS video frames of the aircraft flying into the North tower seem to reveal an aircraft which had very little fuselage ahead of the wing.

What can we deduce from the proportions of the aircraft in the Naudet video?
Any aircraft which does not generate its lift near its center of mass would be uncontrollable, if not unflyable. (Did you ever wonder why a blimp's gondola is not up front?)This tells us that the snub-nosed foreward-winged aircraft evident in the video had a lot of mass in its nose, which suggests that the aircraft was some sort of flying battering ram.

A separate analysis, based upon the DVD release of this video, suggests that the aircraft is at least 25% too small and of the wrong proportions to have been a 767.

Regardless,the "flash frame" alone is evidence of a conspiracy which is not adequately explained by trying to blame it all on "19 guys with boxcutters". It is also an indicator that what we see was not a(n ordinary) 767 impact, which casts a huge doubt over the trusting belief that American Airlines Flight 11 hit the tower.

From the 1st TV broadcast:In the frame before this, thetower had still not yet been hit

As a diversion from such damning evidence, many governmental types within the 9/11 Truth Movement have been attempting to fracture and divide (and thus stifle) the movement by either ignoring or telling bogus lies about, and thus trying to marginalize, web sites which present evidence of 9/11 anomalies - evidence the governmental types are trying to suppress. (Some "911 truth" sites themselves wrongly minimize and totally dismiss and totally ignore this very same case-breaking evidence that the government's 9-11 Commission totally ignored.)